V. I. Lenin

Extraordinary Fourth All-Russia Congress Of 
      Soviets[1]

March 14-16, 1918

Written:March 13, 1918First Published:Pravda Nos. 47, 38 & 49 for March 16 through 18, 1918Source:Lenin’sCollected
	Works, 4th English Edition, Progress Publishers, Moscow,
      1972 Volume 27, pp. 169-201.Translated:Clemens Dutt Edited by Robert DaglishTranscription\HTML Markup:David Walters & Robert CymbalaOnline Version:Lenin Internet ArchiveMarch, 2002

1.Draft Resolution On Wilson’s Message

2.Report On Ratification Of The Peace Treaty, March 14

3.Reply To The Debate On The Report On Ratification Of The Peace Treaty, March 15

4.Resolution On Ratification Of The Brest Treaty

Draft Resolution On Wilson’s Message[2]

The Congress expresses its gratitude to the American people, and
      primarily to the working and exploited classes of the United
      States of America, in connection with President Wilson’s
      expression of his sympathy for the Russian people through the
      Congress of Soviets at a time when the Soviet Socialist Republic
      of Russia is passing through severe trials.

The Russian Soviet
      Republic, having become a neutral country, takes advantage of
      the message received from President Wilson to express to all
      peoples that are perishing and suffering from the horrors of the
      imperialist war its profound sympathy and firm conviction that
      the happy time is not far away when the working people of all
      bourgeois countries will throw off the yoke of capital and
      establish the socialist system of society, the only system able
      to ensure a durable and just peace and also culture and
      well-being for all working people.

Written on March 13 or 16, 1918 Published on March 15, 1918 inPravdaNo. 49 Published according to the manuscript

Report On Ratification Of The Peace Treaty March 14

Comrades, today we have to settle a question that marks a
      turning-point in the development of the Russian revolution, and
      not only of the Russian but also of the international
      revolution, and in order to decide correctly on this very harsh
      peace which representatives of Soviet power have concluded at
      Brest-Litovsk, and which Soviet power asks you to approve, or
      ratify—in order to settle this question correctly it is
      more than ever necessary for us to get an understanding of the
      historical meaning of the turning-point we are at, an
      understanding of the main feature of the development of the
      revolution up to now and the main reason for the severe defeat
      and the period of stern trials we have passed through.

It seems to me that the chief source of disagreement among the
      Soviet parties[3]on this question is that some people too easily give way to a
      feeling of just and legitimate indignation over the defeat of
      the Soviet Republic by imperialism, too easily give way at times
      to despair instead of considering the historical conditions of
      the revolution as they developed up to the time of the present
      peace, and as they appear to us since the peace; instead of
      doing that they try to answer questions of the tactics of the
      revolution on the basis of their immediate feelings. The entire
      history of revolutions, however, teaches us that when we have to
      do with a mass movement or with the class struggle, especially
      one like that at present developing not only throughout a single
      country, albeit a tremendous country, but also involving all
      international relations—in such a case we must base our
      tactics first and foremost on an appraisal of the objective
      situation, we must examine analytically the course of the
      revolution up to this moment and the reason it has taken a turn
      so menacing and so sharp, and so much to our disadvantage.

If we examine the development of our revolution from that point
      of view we see clearly that it has so far passed through a
      period of relative and largely imaginary self-dependence, and of
      being temporarily independent of international relations. The
      path travelled by our revolution from the end of February 1917
      to February 11 of this year,[4]when the German offensive began, was,
      by and large, a path of easy and rapid successes. If we study
      the development of that revolution on an international scale,
      from the standpoint of the Russian revolution alone, we shall
      see that we have passed through three periods in the past
      year. The first period is that in which the working class of
      Russia, together with all advanced, class-conscious and active
      peasants, supported not only by the petty bourgeoisie but also
      by the big bourgeoisie, swept away the monarchy in a few
      days. This astounding success is to be explained by the fact
      that on the one hand, the Russian people had acquired a big
      reserve of revolutionary fighting potential from the experience
      of 1905, while on the other hand, Russia, an extremely backward
      country, had suffered more than any other from the war and had,
      at an especially early date, reached a stage when it was
      absolutely impossible to continue the war under the old regime.

This short tempestuous success when a new organisation was
      created—the Soviets of Workers’, Soldiers’ and
      Peasants’ Deputies—was followed by the long months
      of the period of transition of our revolution, the period in
      which the government of the bourgeoisie, immediately undermined
      by the Soviets, was kept going and strengthened by the petty
      bourgeois compromising parties, the Mensheviks and
      Socialist-Revolutionaries, who supported it. It was a government
      that supported the imperialist war and the imperialist secret
      treaties, fed the working class on promises, did literally
      nothing, and preserved the state of economic ruin. The Soviets
      mustered their forces in this period, a period that for us, for
      the Russian revolution, was a long one; it was a long period for
      the Russian revolution but it was a short one from the
      international point of view, because in most of the leading
      countries the period of overcoming petty-bourgeois illusions, of
      compromise by various parties, groups and trends had been taking
      not months but long decades. The span of time, from April 20 to
      the moment Kerensky renewed the imperialist war in June (he had
      the secret imperialist treaty in his pocket), was decisive. This
      second period included our July defeat and the Kornilov revolt,
      and only through the experience of the mass struggle, only when
      the working-class and peasant masses had realised from their own
      experience and not from sermons that petty-bourgeois compromise
      was all in vain—only then, after long political
      development, after long preparations and changes in the moods
      and views of party groups, was the ground made ready for the
      October Revolution; only then did the Russian revolution enter
      the third period of its initial stage, a stage of isolation, or
      temporary separation, from the world revolution.

This third, or October, period, the period of organisation, was
      the most difficult; at the same time it was a period of the
      biggest and most rapid triumphs. After October, our
      revolution—the revolution that placed power in the hands
      of the revolutionary proletariat, established its dictatorship
      and obtained for it the support of the vast majority of the
      proletariat and the poor peasantry—after October our
      revolution made a victorious, triumphal advance. Throughout
      Russia civil war began in the form of resistance by the
      exploiters, the landowners and bourgeoisie, supported by part of
      the imperialist bourgeoisie.

Civil war broke out, and in that war the forces of the enemies
      of Soviet power, the forces of the enemies of the working and
      exploited masses, proved to be insignificant; the civil war was
      one continuous triumph for Soviet power because its opponents,
      the exploiters, the landowners and bourgeoisie, had neither
      political nor economic support, and their attacks collapsed. The
      struggle against them was not so much a military operation as
      agitation; section after section, mass after mass, down to the
      working Cossacks, abandoned the exploiters who were trying to
      lead them away from Soviet power.

This period of the victorious, triumphal advance of the
      dictatorship of the proletariat and Soviet power, when great
      masses of the working and exploited people of Russia were drawn
      to the side of Soviet power definitely and irrevocably—
      this period constituted the final and highest point of
      development of the Russian revolution, which had been
      progressing all this time, apparently, independently of world
      imperialism. That was the reason why a country which was
      extremely backward and was the most prepared for the revolution
      by the experience of 1905 was able to promote one class after
      another to power rapidly, easily and systematically, getting rid
      of various political alignments until at last that political
      structure was reached which was the last word, not only in the
      Russian revolution, but also in the West-European workers’
      revolutions, for Soviet power has been consolidated in Russia
      and has won the absolute sympathy of the working and exploited
      people because it has destroyed the old state apparatus that was
      an instrument of oppression and has laid the foundation of a
      state of a new and higher form of which the Paris Commune was
      the prototype. The Commune destroyed the old state machine and
      replaced it by the armed force of the masses themselves,
      replaced bourgeois parliamentary democracy by the democracy of
      the working people, which excluded the exploiters and
      systematically suppressed their resistance.

That is what the Russian revolution did in this period and that
      is why a small vanguard of the Russian revolution is under the
      impression that this rapid triumphal advance can be expected to
      continue in further victory. That is precisely their mistake
      because the period when the Russian revolution was developing,
      passing state power in Russia from one class to another and
      getting rid of class compromise within the bounds of Russia
      alone—this period-was able to exist historically only
      because the predatory giants of world imperialism were
      temporarily halted in their advance against Soviet power. A
      revolution that overthrew the monarchy in a few days, exhausted
      all possibilities of compromise with the bourgeoisie in a few
      months and overcame all the resistance by the bourgeoisie in a
      civil war of a few weeks, this revolution, the revolution of a
      socialist republic, could live side by side with the imperialist
      powers, among the international plunderers, the wild beasts of
      international imperialism, only so long as the bourgeoisie,
      locked in mortal struggle with each other, were paralysed in
      their offensive against Russia.

And then began the period that we feel so keenly and see before
      our eyes, the period of disastrous defeats and severe trials for
      the Russian revolution, the period in which the swift, direct
      and open offensive against the enemies of the revolution is over
      while in its place we are experiencing disastrous defeats and
      have to retreat before forces that are immeasurably greater than
      ours, before the forces of international imperialism and finance
      capital, before the military might that the entire bourgeoisie
      with its modern weapons and its organisation has mustered
      against us in the interests of plunder, oppression and the
      strangling of small nations; we had to think of bringing our
      forces up to their level; we had to face a task of tremendous
      difficulty, that of direct combat with enemies that differed
      from Romanov and Kerensky who could not be taken seriously; we
      had to meet the forces of the international imperialist
      bourgeoisie, all its military might, we had to stand face to
      face with the world plunderers. In view of the delay in getting
      help from the international socialist proletariat we naturally
      had to take upon ourselves a conflict with these forces and we
      suffered a disastrous defeat.

And this epoch is one of disastrous defeats, an epoch of
      retreat, an epoch in which we must save at least a small part of
      our position by retreating before imperialism, by awaiting the
      time when there will be changes in the world situation in
      general, when the forces of the European proletariat arrive, the
      forces that exist and are maturing but which have not been able
      to deal with their enemy as easily as we did with ours; it would
      be a very great illusion, a very great mistake, to forget that
      it was easy for the Russian revolution to begin but difficult
      for it to take further steps. This was inevitable because we had
      to begin with the most backward and most rotten political
      system. The European revolution will have to begin against the
      bourgeoisie, against a much more serious enemy and under
      immeasurably more difficult conditions. It will be much more
      difficult for the European revolution to begin. We see that it
      is immeasurably more difficult to make the first breach in the
      system that is holding back the revolution. It will be much
      easier for the European revolution to advance to the second and
      third stages. Things cannot be different with the alignment of
      forces of the revolutionary and reactionary classes that at
      present obtains in the world. This is the main turn in events
      that is always overlooked by people who view the present
      situation, the extremely serious position of the revolution,
      from the stand point of their own feelings and their
      indignation, and not from the historical standpoint. Historical
      experience teaches us that always, in all revolutions, at a time
      when a revolution takes an abrupt turn from swift victory to
      severe defeats, there comes a period of pseudo-revolutionary
      phrase-making that invariably causes the greatest damage to the
      development of the revolution. And so, comrades, we shall be
      able to appraise our tactics correctly only when we set out to
      consider the turn in events that has hurled us back from swift,
      easy and complete victories to grave defeats. This is an
      extremely difficult and extremely serious question arising out
      of the present turning-point in the development of the
      revolution, the turn from easy victories within the country to
      exceptionally heavy defeats without; it is also a turning-point
      in the entire world revolution, a turn from the period of
      propaganda and agitation on the part of the Russian revolution,
      with imperialism biding its time, to the offensive of
      imperialism against Soviet power, and this turn puts a
      particularly difficult and acute question before the
      international movement in Western Europe. If we are not to
      ignore this historical aspect of the situation we must try to
      understand how Russia’s basic interests in the question of
      the present harsh, or obscene, as it is called, peace took
      shape.

When arguing against those who refused to see the need to accept
      that peace, I have often come up against the statement that the
      idea of concluding the peace expresses only the interests of the
      exhausted peasant masses, the declassed soldiers, and so on and
      so forth. Whenever I hear such statements, whenever I hear such
      things referred to, I am always amazed that the class aspect of
      national development is forgotten by comrades—people who
      limit themselves exclusively to seeking explanations. As though
      the Party of the proletariat on taking power had not counted on
      the alliance of the proletariat and the semi-proletariat, i. e.,
      the-poor peasantry (i. e., the majority of the peasantry of
      Russia), had not known that only such an alliance would be able
      to hand the government of Russia over to the revolutionary power
      of the Soviets, the power of the majority, the real majority of
      the people, and that without this alliance it would be senseless
      to make any attempt to establish power, especially at difficult
      turning-points in history! As though we could now abandon this
      verity that was accepted by all of us and confine ourselves to a
      contemptuous reference to the exhausted state of the peasantry
      and the declassed soldiers! With regard to the exhausted state
      of the peasantry and the declassed soldiers we must say that the
      country will offer resistance, and that the poor peasants will
      be able to offer resistance only in so far as those poor
      peasants are capable of directing their forces to the struggle.

When we were about to take power in October it was obvious that
      events were inevitably leading up to it, that the turn towards
      Bolshevism in the Soviets indicated a turn throughout the
      country, and that the Bolsheviks must inevitably take
      power. When we, realising this, took power in October, we said
      to ourselves and to all the people, very clearly and
      unequivocally, that it was a transfer of power to the
      proletariat and the poor peasantry, that the proletariat knew
      the peasantry would support it—you know yourselves in
      what—in its active struggle for peace and its readiness to
      continue the fight against big finance capital. In this we are
      making no mistake, and nobody who sticks to the concept of class
      forces and class alignments can get away from the indisputable
      truth that we cannot ask a country of small peasants, a country
      that has given much for the European and world revolution, to
      carry on the struggle in a difficult situation, a most difficult
      situation, when help from the West-European proletariat has
      undoubtedly been delayed, although there is no doubt that it is
      coming to us, as the facts, the strikes, etc., show. That is why
      I say that such references to the exhaustion of the peasant
      masses, etc., are made by people who simply have no arguments,
      who are absolutely helpless when they seek such arguments, and
      who are quite unable to grasp class relations as a whole, in
      their entirety, the relations of the revolution of the
      proletariat and of the peasant masses; it is only when, at every
      sharp turn in history, we appraise the class relations as a
      whole, the relations of all classes, and do not select
      individual examples and individual cases, that we feel ourselves
      firmly supported by an analysis of probable facts. I realise
      full well that the Russian bourgeoisie are today urging us on
      towards a revolutionary war when it is absolutely impossible for
      us to have such a war. This is essential to the class interests
      of the bourgeoisie.

When they shout about an obscene peace and do not say a word
      about who brought the army to its present state, I realise quite
      well that it is the bourgeoisie together with theDyelo
      Narodapeople, the Tsereteli and Chernov Mensheviks and
      their yes-men (applause)—I know quite well that
      it is the bourgeoisie who are bawling for a revolutionary
      war. Their class interests demand it, their anxiety to see
      Soviet power make a false move demands it. It is not surprising
      that this comes from people who, on the one hand, fill the pages
      of their newspapers with counter-revolutionary
      scribbling. . . . (Voices: “They’ve all
      been suppressed!”) Unfortunately, not yet all of them, but
      we will close them all down. (Applause.) I should like
      to see the proletariat that would allow the
      counter-revolutionaries, those who support the bourgeoisie and
      collaborate with them, to continue using the monopoly of wealth
      to drug the people with their bourgeois opium. There is no such
      proletariat. (Applause.)

I realise, of course, that nothing but shouts, howls and screams
      about an obscene peace comes from those publications, I realise
      full well that the people who favour this revolutionary
      war—from the Constitutional-Democrats to the Right
      Socialist-Revolutionaries—are those who meet the Germans
      as they advance and say triumphantly, here come the Germans, and
      then allow their officers, again wearing their badges of rank,
      to strut about in the places that have been occupied by the
      German imperialist invaders. Oh no, I am not a bit surprised at
      these bourgeois, these collaborators, preaching a revolutionary
      war. They want Soviet power to be caught in a trap. They have
      shown their hand, these bourgeois and collaborators. We have
      seen them and can still see live specimens, we know that in the
      Ukraine there are Ukrainian Kerenskys, Ukrainian Chernovs and
      Ukrainian Tseretelis—there they are, the
      Vinnichenkos. Those gentlemen, the Ukrainian Kerenskys, Chernovs
      and Tseretelis, concealed from the people the peace they
      concluded with the German imperialists, and today they are
      trying to overthrow Soviet power in the Ukraine with the help of
      German bayonets. That is what those bourgeois and those
      collaborators and their accomplices have done. That is what they
      have done, those Ukrainian bourgeois and collaborators, whose
      example you have before your very eyes; they concealed and are
      still concealing their secret treaties from the people, they are
      attacking Soviet power with the aid of German bayonets. That is
      what the Russian bourgeoisie want, that is where the bourgeois
      yes-men are trying to push Soviet power, wittingly or
      unwittingly; they know that under no circumstances can Soviet
      power undertake an imperialist war against the might of
      imperialism at the present moment. That is why it is only in
      this international situation, in this general class situation,
      that we can understand the full depth of the mistake of those
      who, like the Left Socialist-Revolutionary Party, have allowed
      themselves to be carried away by a theory that is common to the
      history of all revolutions at moments of difficulty, a theory
      that is half desperation and half empty phrases; according to
      this theory, instead of taking a sober view of reality and
      appraising the tasks of the revolution in respect of the
      internal and external enemy from the standpoint of class forces,
      you are asked to settle a serious and very grave problem only
      under the impact of your feelings, merely from  standpoint of
      feelings. The peace is incredibly harsh and shameful. ln my
      statements and speeches I have had occasion to liken it to the
      Peace of Tilsit that the conqueror Napoleon forced on the
      Prussian and German peoples after a series of heavy
      defeats. Yes, the peace is a grave defeat and is humiliating to
      Soviet power, but if you, proceeding from this, and limiting
      yourselves to it, appeal to feelings and arouse discontent in an
      attempt to settle a gigantic historical problem, you will get
      into that ridiculous and pitiful situation into which the
      Socialist-Revolutionary Party once got itself, when in 1907, in
      a situation that was somewhat similar in certain respects, that
      party also appealed to the feelings of revolutionaries, when,
      after our revolution had suffered heavy defeats in 1906 and
      1907, Stolypin presented us with the laws on the Third
      Duma—shameful and extremely difficult conditions of work
      in one of the rottenest of representative
      institutions—when our Party, after brief internal wavering
      (the wavering on the question was greater than it is today),
      decided the question in this way: we have no right to give way
      to feelings; no matter how great our indignation and
      dissatisfaction with the shameful Third Duma, we have to
      recognise that it was not chance but the historical necessity of
      a developing class struggle which lacked the strength to
      continue but which could muster that strength even in the
      shameful conditions that have been imposed. We proved to be
      right. Those who tried to attract people by revolutionary
      phrases, by appeals to justice (since they were expressing
      feelings that were trebly legitimate)—those people were
      given a lesson that will not be forgotten by any revolutionary
      capable of thought and possessing ideas.

Revolutions do not go smoothly enough to ensure rapid and easy
      progress. There has never been any great revolution, even on a
      national scale, that did not experience a hard period of defeat,
      and the attitude of a revolutionary towards the serious question
      of mass movements, of developing revolutions, must not be one of
      declaring the peace obscene and humiliating and then saying he
      cannot reconcile himself to it; it is not sufficient to quote
      agitational phrases, to shower reproaches on us because of the
      peace—that is the known ABC of the revolution, the
      experience of all revolutions. Our experience since
      1905—and if we are rich in anything, if there is any
      reason why the Russian working class and poor peasantry have
      taken upon themselves the most difficult and honourable task of
      beginning the world socialist revolution, it is because the
      Russian people have been able, owing to specific historical
      conditions, to make two great revolutions at the beginning of
      the twentieth century—we have to learn from the experience
      of those revolutions, we have to learn to understand that only
      by studying the changes in the class connections between one
      country and another is it possible to prove definitely that we
      are in no condition to accept battle at the moment; we have to
      take this into consideration and say to ourselves, whatever
      respite we may obtain, no matter how unstable, no matter how
      brief, harsh and humiliating the peace may be, it is better than
      war, because it gives the masses a breathing-space, because it
      provides us with an opportunity to correct what the bourgeoisie
      have done, the bourgeoisie that are shouting wherever they have
      an opportunity to shout, especially under the protection of the
      Germans in the occupied regions.

The bourgeoisie are shouting that the Bolsheviks are responsible
      for the disintegration of the army, that there is no army and
      the Bolsheviks are to blame for it; but let us look at the past,
      comrades, let us look, firstly, at the development of our
      revolution. Do you not know that desertion and the
      disintegration of our army began long before the revolution, in
      1916, and that everybody who has seen the army will have to
      admit that? And what did our bourgeoisie do to prevent it? Is it
      not clear that the only chance for salvation from the
      imperialists at that time was in their hands, that a chance
      presented itself in March and April, when Soviet organisations
      could have taken power by a simple motion of the hand against
      the bourgeoisie. And if the Soviets had then taken power, if the
      bourgeois and petty-bourgeois intelligentsia, together with the
      Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks, instead of helping
      Kerensky deceive the people, conceal the secret treaties and
      lead the army to an offensive—if they had then come to the
      aid of the army, had supplied it with munitions and rations and
      had compelled the bourgeoisie to help the fatherland—not
      the fatherland of the hucksters, not the fatherland of treaties
      that help to slaughter the people (applause)—and
      had themselves participated; if the Soviets had forced the
      bourgeoisie to help the fatherland of the workers and all
      working people, and had helped the ragged, barefoot and hungry
      army, then, perhaps, we should have had a period of ten months,
      long enough to rest the army and gain unanimous support for it,
      so that without the army having moved one step from the front a
      general, democratic peace could have been proposed, the secret
      treaties could have been torn up and the line held without
      retreating a single step. There would then have been a chance of
      peace, which the workers and peasants would have willingly
      supported and approved. That would have been the tactics of the
      defence of the fatherland, not the fatherland of the Romanovs,
      Kerenskys, or Chernovs, a fatherland with secret treaties, a
      fatherland of the treacherous bourgeoisie—not that
      fatherland but the fatherland of the working people. That is who
      is responsible for having made the transition from war to
      revolution and from the Russian revolution to world socialism a
      period of severe trials. That is why such proposals as a
      revolutionary war sound like empty phrases, when we know that we
      have no army, when we know that it would have been impossible to
      hold the army, and people with a knowledge of the situation
      could not help seeing that our decree on demobilisation was not
      an invention but the result of obvious necessity, because it
      would have been impossible to hold the army. The army could not
      have been held. That officer, not a Bolshevik, was right who,
      before the October Revolution, said that the army could not and
      would not fight.[5]This is what has come of months of
      bargaining with the bourgeoisie and of all the speeches about
      the need to continue the war; no matter what noble sentiments on
      the part of many revolutionaries, or of few revolutionaries, may
      have dictated them, they proved to be empty revolutionary
      phrases that played into the hands of international imperialism
      so that it could plunder as much again and more, just as it has
      been doing since our tactical or diplomatic error, since the
      time we did not sign the Brest Treaty. When we told those who
      opposed concluding peace that if we had a respite of any length
      they would realise that the recuperation of the army and the
      interests of the working people were more important than
      anything else, and that peace should have been concluded for
      this reason—they maintained that there could be no
      respite.

But our revolution differs from all previous revolutions in
      having aroused among the masses a desire to build and create,
      and the working people in the most out-of-the-way villages,
      people humiliated, downtrodden and oppressed by tsars,
      landowners, and bourgeoisie, have been aroused; this is a period
      of the revolution that is only now being accomplished, now that
      the rural revolution is under way, the revolution that is
      building a new way of life. And for the sake of this respite, no
      matter how brief and how small it may be, it was our duty to
      sign the treaty, since we place the interests of the working
      people above the interests of the bourgeois warriors who rattle
      their sabres and call on us to fight. That is what the
      revolution teaches. The revolution teaches that when we make
      diplomatic mistakes, when we assume that the German workers will
      come to our aid tomorrow, when we hope that Liebknecht will be
      victorious immediately (and we know that one way or another
      Liebknecht will win, that is inevitable in the development of
      the working-class movement [applause]), it means that,
      when used unthinkingly, the revolutionary slogans of the
      difficult socialist movement turn into empty phrases. There is
      not a single representative of the working people, there is not
      a single honest worker who would refuse to make the greatest
      sacrifice to help the socialist movement of Germany, because
      during all this time at the front he has learned to distinguish
      between the German imperialists and the soldiers tormented by
      German discipline, most of whom are in sympathy with us. That is
      why I say that the Russian revolution has corrected our mistake
      in practice, has corrected it by giving us the respite. It is
      very probable that it will be an extremely brief one, but we
      have the chance of at least a brief respite in which the army,
      worn out and hungry as it is, will become conscious of the fact
      that it has been given an opportunity to recuperate. It is clear
      to us that the period of the old imperialist wars is over and we
      are threatened with the further horrors of an outbreak of fresh
      wars, but there have been such periods of war in many historical
      epochs, and they have always become most fierce towards the
      end. This must be understood, not only at meetings in Petrograd
      and Moscow; it must be understood by the many tens of millions
      in the countryside; and the more enlightened part of the rural
      population, those returning from the front, those who have
      experienced the horrors of war, must help them understand it;
      the huge masses of peasants and workers must become convinced of
      the necessity for a revolutionary front—they will then say
      we have acted correctly.

They tell us we have betrayed the Ukraine and Finland—what
      disgrace! But the situation that bas arisen is such that we are
      cut off from Finland, with whom we concluded an unwritten treaty
      before the revolution and have now concluded a formal 
      treaty.[6]They say we are
      surrendering the Ukraine, which Chernov, Kerensky and Tsereteli
      are going to ruin; they say we are traitors, we have betrayed
      the Ukraine! I say: Comrades, I’ve seen enough of the
      history of revolution not to be embarrassed by the hostile
      glances and shouts of people who give way to their feelings and
      are incapable of clear judgement. I will give you a simple
      example. Suppose that two friends are out walking at night and
      they are attacked by ten men. If the scoundrels isolate one of
      them, what is the other to do? He cannot render assistance, and
      if he runs away is he a traitor? And suppose that it is not a
      matter of individuals or of spheres in which questions of direct
      feelings are being settled, but of five armies, each a
      hundred-thousand strong, that surround an army of two hundred
      thousand, and that there is another army that should come to the
      embattled army’s assistance. But if that second army knows
      that it is certain to fall into a trap, it should withdraw; it
      must withdraw, even if the retreat has to be covered by the
      conclusion of an obscene, foul peace—curse as much as you
      like, but it is necessary to conclude the peace. There is no
      reason for considering the feelings of a duelist who draws his
      sword and says that he must die because he is being compelled to
      conclude a humiliating peace. But we all know that, however we
      may decide, we have no army, and no gestures will save us from
      the necessity of withdrawing to gain time and enable our army to
      recuperate; everybody who looks reality in the face and does not
      deceive himself with revolutionary phrase-making will agree with
      this. Anyone who faces the facts without blinding himself with
      phrase-making and arrogance must know this.

If we know this, it is our revolutionary duty to conclude even
      this harsh, super-harsh and rapacious treaty, for by so doing we
      shall reach a better position for ourselves and for our
      allies. Did we actually lose anything by concluding the peace
      treaty of March 3? Anyone who wants to look at things from the
      point of view of mass relations, and not from that of the
      aristocratic duelist, will realise that without an army, or
      having only the sick remnant of an army, it would be
      self-deception, it would he the greatest deception of the
      people, to accept battle and call it a revolutionary war. It is
      our duty to tell the people the truth; yes, the peace is a harsh
      one. The Ukraine and Finland are perishing but we must accept
      this peace and all class-conscious working people in Russia will
      accept it because they know the unvarnished truth, they know the
      meaning of war, they know that to stake everything on one card
      on the assumption that the German revolution will begin
      immediately is self-deception. By concluding peace we have
      obtained what we gave our Finnish friends—a respite, help
      and not destruction.

I know of examples from history of much more rapacious peace
      treaties having been concluded, treaties that surrendered viable
      nations to the mercy of the conqueror. Let us compare our peace
      to the Peace of Tilsit; the Peace of TiIsit was enforced on
      Prussia and Germany by a conqueror. That peace was so harsh that
      not only were all the capital cities of all the German states
      seized, not only were the Prussians thrown back to Tilsit, which
      would be the same as throwing us back to Omsk or Tomsk; not only
      that—the worst of all was that Napoleon compelled the
      conquered peoples to supply him with auxiliary troops for his
      wars; but nevertheless, when the situation became such that the
      German peoples had to withstand the attacks of the conquer or,
      when the epoch of revolutionary wars in France gave place to the
      epoch of imperialist wars of conquest, then came the revelation
      which those people who wax enthusiastic over empty phrases do
      not want to understand, those people, that is, who picture the
      conclusion of peace as a downfall. This psychology is
      understandable in an aristocratic duelist but not in a worker or
      peasant. The latter has been through the hard school of war and
      has learned to calculate. There have been even greater trials,
      and nations even more backward have come through them. Harsher
      peace treaties have been concluded, the Germans concluded one in
      an epoch when they had no army, or when their army was sick like
      ours. They concluded a very harsh peace with Napoleon. But that
      peace was not the downfall of Germany—on the contrary, it
      was the turning-point, national defence, renewal. We are on the
      eve of just such a turning-point and are experiencing analogous
      conditions. We must look truth in the face and banish all empty
      phrases and declarations. We must say, peace, if it is
      necessary, must be concluded. The war of liberation, the class
      war, the war of the people will take the place of the Napoleonic
      wars. The system of the Napoleonic wars will change, war will
      give place to peace and peace to war, and from every harsh peace
      there has always emerged a more extensive preparation for
      war. The harshest of peace treaties—the Peace of
      Tilsit—has gone down in history as a turning-point towards
      the time when the German people began to swing round; when they
      retreated to Tilsit, to Russia, they were actually gaining time,
      waiting for the international situation that had, at one time,
      favoured Napoleon—he was another plunderer like
      Hohenzollern or Hindenburg—waiting until the situation
      changed, until the mentality of the German people, tormented by
      decades of Napoleonic wars and defeats, had recuperated and the
      German people were resuscitated. That is what history teaches
      us, that is why all despair and empty phrases are criminal, that
      is why everyone will say yes, the old imperialist wars are
      ending—an historical turning-point has come.

Our revolution has been one long triumph since October, and now
      the lengthy times of hardship have come, we do not know for how
      long, but we do know that it will be a long and difficult period
      of defeats and retreats, because the alignment of forces is what
      it is, because by retreating we shall give the people a chance
      to recuperate. We shall make it possible for every worker and
      peasant to realise the truth that will enable him to understand
      that new wars waged by the imperialist plunderers against the
      oppressed peoples are beginning, and every worker and peasant
      will realise that we must rise in defence of the fatherland,
      because we have been defencists since October. Since October 25
      we have said openly that we stand for the defence of the
      fatherland, because we have a fatherland, the one from which we
      have driven the Kerenskys and Chernovs, because we have torn up
      the secret treaties, because we have crushed the
      bourgeoisie—badly so far, but we shall learn to do it
      better.

Comrades, there is another important difference between the
      condition of the German people and of the Russian people who
      have suffered a severe defeat at the hands of the German
      invaders—there is a tremendous difference that must be
      mentioned, although I have already touched upon it briefly in
      the preceding part of my speech. Comrades, when the German
      people, over a hundred years ago, entered a period of the most
      cruel wars of conquest, a period when they had to retreat and
      conclude one shameful treaty after another before they were
      awakened—at that time the German people were weak and
      backward, just that and nothing more. They had against them not
      only the military forces and the might of the conqueror
      Napoleon, they had against them a country that was far above
      Germany in the revolutionary and political sense and in every
      other respect, a country that had risen far above all others, a
      country that had reached the top. That country was far above the
      people who were languishing in subjection to the imperialists
      and landowners. A people that, I repeat, had been nothing but a
      weak and backward people, managed to learn from its bitter
      lessons and to raise itself up. We are in a better position; we
      are not merely a weak and backward people, we are the people who
      have been able—not because of any special services or of
      historical predestination, but because of a definite conjunction
      of historical circumstances—who have been able to accept
      the honour of raising the banner of the international socialist
      revolution. (Applause.)

I am well aware, comrades, that the banner is in weak hands, I
      have said that outright several times already, and the workers
      of the most backward country will not be able to hold that
      banner unless the workers of all advanced countries come to
      their aid. The socialist reforms that we have accomplished are
      far from perfect, they are weak and insufficient; they will
      serve as a guide to the advanced West-European workers who will
      say to themselves, “The Russians haven’t made a very
      good beginning on the job that has to be done”; the
      important thing is that our people are not merely a weak and
      backward people as compared with the Germans, they are the
      people who have raised the banner of revolution. Although the
      bourgeoisie of any country you like are filling the columns of
      their press with slander of the Bolsheviks, although the voice
      of the imperialist press in France, Britain, Germany, etc.,
      curses the Bolsheviks in unison, you will not find a meeting of
      workers in any country at which the names and slogans of our
      socialist government give rise to bursts of
      indignation. (Voice: ’That’s a
      lie!”) No, it is not, it is the truth, and anyone who has
      been in Germany, Austria, Switzerland or America during the past
      few months will tell you it is the truth and not a lie, that the
      names and slogans of representatives of Soviet power in Russia
      are greeted with the greatest enthusiasm by the workers and
      that, despite all the lies of the bourgeoisie of Germany,
      France, etc., the working-class masses have realised that no
      matter how weak we may be, their cause is being served here in
      Russia. Yes, our people have a very heavy burden to bear, the
      burden they have themselves taken up; but a people that has been
      able to establish Soviet power cannot perish. Again I
      repeat—there is not a single politically conscious
      socialist, not a single worker among those who think over the
      history of the revolution, who can dispute the fact that Soviet
      power— despite all the defects that I know only too well
      and fully appreciate—is the highest type of state, the
      direct successor to the Paris Commune. It has ascended a step
      higher than the other European revolutions so that we are not
      experiencing the difficult conditions that the German people
      experienced a hundred years ago; the change in the balance of
      forces among the plunderers, taking advantage of the conflict
      and satisfying the demands of plunderer Napoleon, plunderer
      Alexander I and the plundering British monarchy—that was
      the only thing left, the one chance, for the German people,
      oppressed by feudalism; and yet the German people did not perish
      from the Peace of Tilsit. But we, I say again, have better
      conditions, we have a powerful ally in all West-European
      countries, the international socialist proletariat, the
      proletariat that is on our side no matter what our enemies may
      say. (Applause.) True, it is not easy for that ally to
      raise his voice, any more than it was easy for us until the end
      of February 1917. That ally is living in the underground, under
      conditions of the military prison into which all imperialist
      countries have been turned, but he knows us and understands our
      cause; it is difficult for him to come to our aid, and Soviet
      troops, therefore, will need much time and patience and will
      have to go through many trials before the time comes when he
      will aid us—we shall use even the slightest chance of
      procrastination, for time is working on our side. Our cause is
      gaining strength, the forces of the imperialists are weakening,
      and no matter what trials and defeats may emerge from the
      “Tilsit” peace, we are beginning the tactics of
      withdrawal and, once more I say it, there is no doubt the
      politically-conscious proletariat and, likewise, the
      politically-conscious peasants are on our side, and we shall be
      able not only to make heroic at tacks, but also to make a heroic
      retreat and we shall wait until the international socialist
      proletariat comes to our aid and shall then begin a second
      socialist revolution that will be world-wide in its
      scope. (Applause.)

Pravda(Sotsial-Demokrat) Nos. 47 and 48, March 16
      and 17, 1918; Published according to the verbatim report, collated with thePravdatext

Reply To The Debate On The Report On Ratification Of The Peace Treaty March 15

Comrades, had I desired to find a confirmation of what was said
      in my first speech about the nature of the revolutionary war
      that was proposed to us, the best and clearest confirmation
      would have been given me by the report of the representative of
      the Left Socialist-Revolutionaries.[7]I think it will be most expedient if I
      quote his speech from the verbatim report and we shall see what
      arguments they adduce in confirmation of their propositions.

Here is a specimen of the arguments on which they rely. There
      has been talk here of the volost gathering.[8]Those who consider this
      meeting a volost gathering can resort to such arguments, but it
      is clear that these people are repeating our words but are
      incapable of thinking them out. People repeat what the
      Bolsheviks taught the Left S.R.s when the latter were still
      among the Rights, and when they speak it is evident that they
      have learnt by rote what we said, but they have not understood
      on what it was based, and now they repeat it. Tsereteli and
      Chernov were defencists, and now we are defencists, we are
      “traitors”,  we are “betrayers”. The
      accomplices of the bourgeoisie speak here about a volost
      gathering—they make eyes when they say this—but
      every worker understands very well the aims of the defencism by
      which Tsereteli and Chernov were guided and the grounds which
      cause us to be defencists.

If we were to support the Russian capitalists who wanted to be
      given the Dardanelles, Armenia and Galicia, as it was written in
      the secret treaty, that would be defencism in the spirit of
      Chernov and Tsereteli, and that defencism was disgraceful then,
      but now our defencism is honourable. (Applause.)

And when, alongside such arguments, in the verbatim report of
      Kamkov’s speech I find twice repeated the statement that
      the Bolsheviks are agents of German imperialism (applause
      from the Right), a harsh term—I am very glad that
      all those who pursued Kerensky’s policy emphasise it by
      their applause. (Applause.) And indeed, of course, it
      is not for me to object to harsh words. I shall never raise any
      objection to that. Only, in order to be harsh one must have the
      right to be so, and the right to be harsh is given by
      one’s words not differing from one’s deeds. That is
      the little condition which many intellectuals do not appreciate,
      but which the workers and peasants have grasped even at volost
      gatherings—it is such a meagre thing, the volost
      gathering—they have grasped it both at volost gatherings
      and in Soviet organisations, and their word does not differ from
      their deed. But we are very well aware that they, the Left
      S.R.s, remained in the party of the Right S.R.s until October,
      during the time when the latter were sharing the rewards of
      office, when they acted as agents because they had been promised
      ministerial posts in return for keeping silent about the secret
      treaties. (Applause.) But it is quite impossible to
      call agents of imperialism people who actually proclaimed war
      against it, tore up the treaties and undertook the risk that
      this involved, undertook to drag out the negotiations in Brest,
      knowing that this would ruin the country, endured the military
      attack and a series of unprecedented defeats, and did not
      conceal the slightest thing from the people.

Martov has assured us here that he has not read the treaty. Let
      those who like to, believe him. We know that these people are
      accustomed to read a lot of newspapers, but they have not read
      the treaty. (Applause.) Let those who wish, believe
      it. But I tell you that, while the party of the S.R.s knows very
      well that we are giving way in the face of violence, which has
      been fully exposed by us, that we are doing so deliberately,
      frankly saying that we are unable to fight just now but are
      giving way—history. knows of a number of most shameful
      treaties and a number of wars—when people in reply to this
      produce the word “agents”,  this harshness exposes
      them, and when they assure us that they disclaim responsibility
      for what they are doing—is it not hypocrisy, when people
      disclaim responsibility but continue to be in the government? I
      maintain that when they say that they disclaim
      responsibility—they do not divest themselves of it, and
      they are quite wrong in thinking this is a volost gathering. No,
      this is everything that is honest and best among the working
      masses. (Applause.) This is no bourgeois parliament to
      which people are elected once or twice a year to take their
      seats and receive a salary. These are people sent from the
      provinces and tomorrow they will be in the provinces and will
      relate that if the party of Left S.R.s is losing votes, it
      deserves to, because the party which acts in this way is the
      same soap bubble among the peasantry as it proved to be among
      the working class. (Applause,voices:
      “Quite right.”)

Further, I will quote you one more passage from Kamkov’s
      speech to show how every representative of the working and
      exploited people reacts to it. “When yesterday Comrade
      Lenin asserted here that Comrades Tsereteli and Chernov and
      others had demoralised the army, can we really not find the
      courage to say that Lenin and I also demoralised the
      army?” He is a long way wide of the
      mark. (Applause.) He has heard that we were defeatists,
      and he has recalled this when we have ceased to be
      defeatists. He has recalled it at the wrong time. They have
      learnt the word by heart, they have a revolutionary-sounding toy
      rattle to play with, but they are incapable of giving some
      thought to the actual state of affairs. (Applause.) I
      assert that out of a thousand volost gatherings where Soviet
      power has been consolidated, in more than nine hundred there are
      people who will tell the Party of Left S.R.s that they do not
      deserve any confidence. They will say—all right; we
      demoralised the army and we must recall that now. But how did we
      demoralise the army? We were defeatists at the time of the tsar,
      but at the time of Tsereteli and Chernov we were not
      defeatists. We published inPravdaa proclamation which
      Krylenko, who was then still being persecuted, addressed to the
      army: “Why I am going to Petrograd.” He said:
      “We are not calling on you for mutinies.” That was
      not demoralisation of the army. Those who declared this war to
      be a great war were the ones who demoralised the army.

It was Tsereteli and Chernov who demoralised the army because
      they spoke grand words to the people, words which many Left
      Socialist-Revolutionaries were accustomed to throw out at
      random. It is easy to play with words, but the Russian people at
      volost gatherings are accustomed to think over them and take
      them seriously. If, however, the people were told that we were
      striving for peace and discussing the conditions of the
      imperialist war, then I ask: and what about the secret treaties
      and the June offensive? That is how they demoralised the
      army. If they spoke to the people about the struggle against the
      imperialists, about defence of the homeland, the people asked
      themselves: do they seize the capitalists by the scruff of the
      neck somewhere?—that is how they demoralised the army, and
      that is why I said, and no one has refuted it, it would have
      been the salvation of the army if we had taken power in March or
      April, and if instead of the furious hatred of the exploiters
      because we suppressed them—they quite justifiably hate
      us—if instead of this they had put the interests of the
      homeland of the working and exploited people higher than the
      interests of the homeland of Kerensky and Ryabushinsky’s
      secret treaties, and of designs on Armenia, Galicia and the
      Dardanelles, that would have spelt salvation. And in this
      connection—beginning with the great Russian Revolution,
      and especially from March, when a half-hearted appeal to the
      peoples of all countries[9]was issued—the government, which
      issued the appeal that called for the overthrow of the bankers
      of all countries, was itself sharing profits and favours with
      the bankers—that is what demoralised the army and why the
      army could not keep going. (Applause.)

And I assert that we—beginning from this appeal of
      Krylenko’s, which was not the first,[10]and which I am recalling
      because it stuck in my mind—we did not demoralise the army
      but said: hold the front—the sooner you take power the
      easier will it be to retain it, and to say now: we are against
      civil war and for an uprising—how unworthy this is and how
      despicable this chatter of some people. When this reaches the
      countryside and when the soldiers there, who have seen war not
      as the intellectuals have, and who know that it is easy to wave
      only a cardboard sword, when they say that at the critical
      moment they, unshod, badly clothed and suffering, were helped by
      being driven into an offensive—they are now being told
      that it doesn’t matter that there will be no army, there
      will be an uprising instead. To drive the people against a
      regular army with superior technical equipment—that is
      criminal, and we, as socialists, taught that it is so. Indeed,
      the war taught a great deal, not only that people suffered, but
      also that those who have the greatest technical equipment,
      organisation and discipline, and the best machines, will gain
      the upper hand; the war taught this, and it is excellent that it
      did so. It has to be learnt that it is impossible to live in
      modern society without machines, without discipline—one
      has either to master modern techniques or be crushed. Years of
      most painful suffering have taught the peasants what war is. And
      when anyone goes speech-making at the volost gatherings, when
      the party of Left S.R.s goes there, they will receive
      well-merited punishment. (Applause.)

One more example, another quotation from Kamkov’s
      speech. (He reads it.)

It is sometimes surprisingly easy to raise questions; only there
      is a saying—an impolite, rude one—which refers to
      such questions—I’m afraid I can’t change the
      proverb—I will remind you of it: one fool can ask more
      questions than ten wise men can answer.

Comrades, in the quotation I have just read out I am invited to
      answer the question: will the respite last one week, two weeks,
      or will it last more? I assert that at any volost gathering or
      at any factory a person who in the name of a serious party comes
      out with such a question will be laughed at by the people and
      chased away, because at any volost gathering they will
      understand that there is no point in raising questions about
      something that cannot be known. That will be understood by any
      worker and peasant. (Applause.) If you absolutely
      insist on an answer, I will tell you that of course any Left
      S.R. who writes in the newspapers or speaks at meetings will say
      what this duration depends on: it depends on when Japan attacks,
      with what forces, and what resistance it encounters; on the
      extent to which the Germans get into difficulties in Finland, in
      the Ukraine; on when the offensive on all fronts begins; on how
      it develops; on the further course of the internal conflict in
      Austria and Germany, and on many other things as
      well. (Applause.)

Therefore, when at a serious meeting people with an air of
      triumph raise the question: answer me, what kind of a respite
      will it be?—I say that such people will be chased out of
      workers’ and peasants’ meetings by those who
      understand that after three years of war torment, every week of
      respite is a very great boon. (Applause.) And I assert that
      whatever the abuse now heaped on us here, if tomorrow all the
      abusive terms addressed to us from the Rights, almost-Rights,
      near-Rights, Left S.R.s, Cadets, and Mensheviks were collected
      together and published, even if some hundreds of poods were the
      result, as far as I am concerned all this would weigh as light
      as a feather compared with the fact that among us in the
      Bolshevik group nine-tenths of its representatives have said: we
      know war and we see that now, when we have secured this short
      respite, it is an advantage for the recovery of our sick
      army. And at every peasant meeting nine-tenths of the peasants
      will say what everyone who concerns himself with the matter
      knows, and when able to help in any way we have not rejected and
      do not reject any practical proposal.

We have gained the possibility of a respite, even if only for
      twelve days, thanks to the policy which has countered
      revolutionary phrase-making and “public”
      opinion. When Kamkov and the Left S.R.s play a game with you and
      make eyes at you, then, on the one hand, they are making eyes at
      you and, on the other, they are saying to the
      Constitutional-Democrats: put that down in our favour, indeed,
      we are heart and soul with you. (Voice from the hall:
      “It’s a lie.”) And when one of the
      representatives of the S.R.s, apparently not even of the Lefts,
      but of the super-Lefts, a Maximalist, spoke about phrase-making,
      he said that phrase-making was everything that concerned
      honour. (A voice: “Quite right.”) Well, of
      course, in the Right-wing camp they call out “quite
      right”; this exclamation is pleasanter to me than the
      exclamation “it’s a lie”,  although that does
      not impress me in the slightest either. But if I were to accuse
      them of phrase-making without giving any clear and precise
      confirmation of it, but the fact is I quoted two examples and I
      took them not from my imagination but from actual occurrence.

Remember, were not the representatives of the S.R.s in the same
      situation when in 1907 they gave their signatures to Stolypin
      that they would faithfully and truly serve the Emperor Nicholas
      II? I hope that I have learnt something from the long years of
      the revolution, and when I am defamed by accusations of
      treachery, I say: one must first of all be able to find
      one’s way in history. If we wanted to alter the course of
      history and it turns out that it was we who altered course and
      not history—then execute us. History is not to be
      convinced by speeches, and history will show that we were right,
      that we brought the workers’ organisations into the Great
      October Revolution of 1917, but only thanks to the fact that we
      rose above phrase-making and knew how to look at the facts, to
      learn from them. And when now, on March 14-15, it has become
      clear that if we had fought we should have helped imperialism,
      we should have finally wrecked the transport system and lost
      Petrograd—we see that to play with words and wave a
      cardboard sword is useless. But when Kamkov comes to me and asks
      “will this respite be for long?”,  it is impossible
      to give an answer because internationally there has not been an
      objective revolutionary situation. There cannot be a long
      respite for reaction now because the objective situation is
      everywhere revolutionary, because everywhere the working-class
      masses are indignant, are at the limit of their patience, at the
      limit of exhaustion from the war; that is a fact. It is
      impossible to escape from this fact, and therefore I have been
      proving to you that there was a period when the revolution went
      ahead and we went in front and the Left S.R.s stepped out
      perkily behind us. (Applause.) But now a period has
      begun when we have to retreat in the face of overwhelming
      force. That is an absolutely concrete description. No one will
      rebut me on this. Historical analysis is bound to confirm
      it. Here you have our Marxist, almost Marxist, Martov, speaking
      ill of the volost gathering; he speaks ill of the closing down
      of newspapers; he boasts that the oppressed and offended
      newspapers were closed down because they were helping to
      overthrow Soviet power, he speaks ill of. . . About this he does
      not keep silent. Such things he sets before you, but an attempt
      to answer the historical question put point-blank by me, whether
      it is the truth or not that since October we have made a
      triumphant advance. . . . (Voices from the Right:
      “No.”) You say “no”,  but all these say
      “yes”. I ask: can we now make a victorious advance
      in an offensive against world imperialism. We cannot, and
      everyone knows it. When this, a frank simple statement, is made
      forthrightly in order to teach people
      revolution—revolution is a profound, difficult and complex
      science—in order to teach both the workers and the
      peasants, the people who are making the revolution, how to do
      so, our enemies cry out: cowards, traitors, the flag has been
      abandoned; they fall back on words, they wave their
      arms. No. The whole history of revolutions has shown many such
      revolutionary phrase-mongers and nothing is left of them but
      stench and smoke. (Applause.)

Another example I cited, comrades, was that of Germany, of
      Germany which was crushed by Napoleon, of Germany which
      witnessed shameful peace alternating with wars. I am asked: are
      we going to observe the treaties for a long time? If it were a
      three-year-old child who asked me: are you going to observe the
      treaty or not?—it would be both pleasant and
      naïve. But when grown-up Kamkov of the party of Left S.R.s
      asks it, I know a few adult workers and peasants will believe in
      the naïveté, but the majority of them will say:
      “Stop being hypocritical.” For the historical
      example I cited shows as clearly as can be that emancipatory
      wars of peoples that have lost an army—and that has
      happened more than once—of peoples crushed to the extent
      of complete loss of all their territory, crushed to such an
      extent that they have surrendered auxiliary corps to the
      conqueror for new annexationist campaigns—cannot be struck
      out of history, and can in no way be erased. If, however, the
      Left S.R. Kamkov, in rebutting me, said, as I saw in the
      verbatim report: “In Spain, however, there were
      revolutionary wars,” he thereby confirmed what I am
      saying, indeed he hit out at himself. Spain and Germany
      precisely confirm my example that to decide the question of the
      historical period of annexationist wars on the basis of
      “are you going to observe the treaty and, when you violate
      it, when will they catch you. . . ?” is indeed worthy of
      children. History tells us that every treaty results from a
      cessation of struggle and a change in the relationship of
      forces, that there have been peace treaties which were shattered
      in a few days, that there have been peace treaties which were
      shattered after a month, that there were periods of many years
      when Germany and Spain concluded peace and violated it after a
      few months, violated it several times, and in a series of wars
      the peoples learnt what waging war means. When Napoleon led
      German armies in order to strangle other peoples he taught them
      revolutionary war. Such was the course of history.

That is why I tell you, comrades, that I am deeply convinced
      that the decision adopted by nine-tenths of our Bolshevik
      group[11]will
      be approved by nine-tenths of all the politically-conscious
      working people of Russia—workers and
      peasants. (Applause.)

We have a means of checking whether I spoke the truth or whether
      I am mistaken, for you will go into the provinces and each one
      of you will report to the local Soviets, and everywhere there
      will be local decisions. I will say in conclusion: do not
      succumb to provocation. The bourgeoisie knows what it is doing,
      the bourgeoisie knows why it rejoiced in Pskov, rejoiced
      recently in Odessa, the bourgeoisie of the Vinnichenkos, of the
      Ukrainian Kerenskys, of Tsereteli and Chernov. It rejoiced
      because it understood perfectly what a tremendous mistake in
      diplomacy, in taking account of the situation, Soviet power had
      committed by trying to wage war with a fleeing, sick army. The
      bourgeoisie is trying to draw you into the pitfall of war. One
      has not only to attack but also to retreat. Every soldier knows
      that. Realise that the bourgeoisie is trying to draw both you
      and us into a trap. Realise that the whole bourgeoisie and all
      its voluntary and involuntary accomplices are setting this
      trap. You will be able to endure the most severe defeats and to
      maintain the most difficult positions, and by retreating to gain
      time. Time is on our side. The imperialists, having glutted
      themselves, will burst, and in their womb a new giant is
      developing; it is growing more slowly than we should like, but
      it is growing, it will come to our aid, and when we see that it
      is beginning to strike its first blow, we shall say: the time
      for retreat has come to an end, the era of the world offensive
      and the era of the victory of the world socialist revolution is
      beginning. (Stormy applause,continuing for a long
      time.)

PravdaNo. 49, March 16, 1918; Published according to
      the verbatim report, collated with thePravdatext

Resolution On Ratification Of The Brest Treaty

The Congress confirms (ratifies) the peace treaty signed by our
      representatives at Brest-Litovsk on March 3, 1918.

The Congress recognises as correct the actions of the Central
      Executive Committee and the Council of People’s Commissars
      in deciding to conclude the present incredibly harsh, rapacious
      and humiliating peace in view of our having no army and of the
      extreme war weariness of the people, who in their distress have
      received no support from the bourgeoisie and bourgeois
      intelligentsia, but have seen that distress made use of for
      selfish class purposes.

The Congress also recognises the undoubted correctness of the
      actions of the peace delegation that refused to enter into a
      detailed discussion on the German peace terms, because those
      terms were imposed on us in the form of an obvious ultimatum and
      by undisguised force.

The Congress most insistently urges upon all workers, soldiers
      and peasants, all the working and oppressed masses, the main,
      immediate and most urgent task of the moment—the
      improvement of the discipline and self-discipline of the working
      people; the creation throughout the country of strong,
      well-founded organisations that cover, as far as possible, all
      production and distribution; a ruthless struggle against the
      chaos, disorganisation and economic ruin which are historically
      inevitable as the legacy of a most agonising war, but which are,
      at the same time, the main obstacle to the complete victory of
      socialism and the strengthening of the foundations of socialist
      society.

Today, after the October Revolution, after the overthrow of the
      political power of the bourgeoisie in Russia, after our
      denunciation and publication of all secret imperialist treaties,
      after the cancellation of the foreign loans, after the
      workers’ and peasants’ government has proposed a
      just peace to all peoples without exception, Russia, having
      escaped from the clutches of the imperialist war, has the right
      to announce that she is not a participant in the plunder and
      suppression of other countries.

The Russian Soviet Federative Republic, having unanimously
      condemned predatory wars, from now on deems it its right and its
      duty to defend the socialist fatherland against all possible
      attacks by any of the imperialist powers.

The Congress therefore deems it the unconditional duty of all
      working people to muster all forces to re-establish and improve
      the defence potential of our country, to re-establish its
      military strength on the basis of a socialist militia and the
      universal military training of all adolescents and adults of
      both sexes.

The Congress expresses its absolute confidence that Soviet
      power, which has valiantly fulfilled all the obligations of the
      international solidarity of the workers of all countries in
      their struggle for socialism against the yoke of capital, will
      in future do everything possible to promote the international
      socialist movement, to secure and shorten the road leading
      mankind to deliverance from the yoke of capital and from wage
      slavery, to the creation of a socialist society and to an
      enduring, just peace between the peoples.

The Congress is firmly convinced that the international
      workers’ revolution is not far away, that the full victory
      of the socialist proletariat is assured despite the fact that
      the imperialists of all countries do not hesitate to use the
      most brutal means for the suppression of the socialist
      movement.

Pravda(Sotsial-Demokrat) No. 47, March 16, 1918

      Published according to thePravdatext, collated with the manuscript

1.Extraordinary Fourth All-Russia Congress of Soviets,
      which was held to decide the question of the ratification of the
      Peace Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, was held in Moscow from March 14 to
      16, 1918. On March 13 this question was discussed by the Communist
      group of the Congress; Lenin spoke at the meeting (for the
      secretarial record of this speech seeLenin Miscellany
	XI, pp. 68-70). By 453 votes to 36 the group approved the
      signing of the treaty. Not all the delegates had arrived at the
      time and the group was not present in full strength.

According to the minutes, the Congress was attended by 1,232
      delegates with a vote; they included 795 Bolsheviks, 283 Left
      Socialist-Revolutionaries, 25 Socialist-Revolutionaries of the
      Centre, 21 Mensheviks, and 11 Menshevik-Internationalists. The
      questions on the agenda were: ratification of the peace treaty;
      transfer of the capital; election of the All-Russia C.E.C. After
      a statement on the peace treaty by G. V. Chicherin,
      People’s Deputy Commissar for Foreign Affairs, Lenin gave
      the report on the main question on the agenda on behalf of the
      All-Russia Central Executive Committee; the second report on
      behalf of the Left Socialist-Revolutionaries against
      ratification of the treaty was given by B. D. Kamkov.

The Mensheviks, Right and Left Socialist-Revolutionaries,
      Maximalists, anarchists and others put up a solid front against
      ratification of the treaty. After a keen debate a signed vote
      was taken and the Congress adopted Lenin’s resolution in
      favour of ratification by an overwhelming majority. There were
      784 votes in favour, 261 against and 115 delegates abstained. In
      connection with the ratification of the Brest Treaty the Left
      S.R.s withdrew from the Council of People’s
      Commissars. The “Left Communists” refused to take
      part in the voting and stated in a special declaration that the
      conclusion of peace would undermine the country’s defence
      and the gains of the revolution. By refusing to vote, the
      “Left Communists” violated the decisions of the
      Seventh Party Congress and the Communist group of the
      Extraordinary Fourth All-Russia Congress of Soviets and the
      decision taken by the Central Committee, which met while the
      Congress was on, that there should be no action against the
      decisions of the Party.

The Congress passed a resolution on the transfer of the capital
      of the Soviet state to Moscow and elected a Central Executive
      Committee consisting of 200 members.

The decision of the Congress on ratification of the peace treaty
      was approved by the local Soviets, the Party organisations and
      the working people at numerous meetings and conferences held at
      the time.

2.The
      draft resolution was written by Lenin in reply to a message from
      Woodrow Wilson, President of the United States, in which he tried,
      by expressing sympathy he probably did not feel for the Russian
      people over the German occupation of the Baltic States,
      Byelorussia and the Ukraine, to influence the decision of the
      Congress and prevent Soviet Russia from ratifying the peace treaty
      with Germany. 
 
      The draft resolution was read out by Y. M. Sverdlov and approved by the Congress.

3.The reference is to the Menshevik and Socialist-Revolutionary
      parties, which were represented in the Soviets of
      Workers’, Peasants’ and Soldiers’
      Deputies. The Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries, however,
      soon took the path of direct counter-revolution and on June 14,
      1918 the All-Russia C.E.C. passed a decision expelling the
      counter-revolutionary Socialist-Revolutionaries (the Rights and
      the Centre) and the Mensheviks from the All-Russia Central
      Executive Committee and the local Soviets. The decision was
      published on June 18 inIzvestia VTsIKNo. 123.

4.Lenin appears to connect the new turn in the development of the
      revolution with February 10, when Germany broke off peace
      negotiations in Brest-Litovsk. The German action was facilitated
      by L. D. Trotsky’s refusal to conclude peace on the terms
      proposed by the German imperialists. Lenin also mentions this
      date in the plan he made for his report to the Extraordinary
      Fourth All-Russia Congress of Soviets on ratification of the
      Brest Treaty. In another document, the plan for his speech at a
      meeting of the Communist group of the Congress of Soviets, Lenin
      defines the turning point in the development of the revolution
      as February 17. The German offensive along the whole front began
      on February 18, 1918.

5.Lenin has in mind the speech at the meeting of the Petrograd
      Soviet on September 21 (October 4), 1917 by Dubasov, an army
      officer who had returned from the front. Describing the mood of
      the soldiers, Dubasov stated that they wanted only one thing, an
      end to the war, and that they would not go on fighting.

6.The reference is to the Treaty between the Russian and Finnish
      Socialist Republics, the first treaty in history between
      socialist countries. In the middle of February 1918, the
      revolutionary government of the Finnish republic proposed a
      treaty of friendship to the Soviet Government. The
      Russia-Finland Co-ordinative Commission was formed to draw up
      the treaty and its draft was discussed at several meetings of
      the Council of People’s Commissars, Lenin making several
      amendments to it. The treaty was signed on March 1 by a special
      commission headed by Lenin. It was endorsed by the Council of
      People’s Commissars and published on March 10, 1918 inIzvestia VTsIKNo. 45 (seeDecrees of the Soviet
      Government, Russ. ed., Vol: 1, 1957, pp. 503-10). Based on
      recognition of the state sovereignty of Finland, the treaty
      provided evidence of the Soviet Government’s consistent
      adherence to the principle of the right of nations to
      self-determination.

7.Lenin is referring to the second report, by B. D. Kamkov, on the
      question of ratification of the peace treaty.

8.In his speech at the Congress the Menshevik L. Martov claimed
      that the contents of the treaty were not known to the Congress
      delegates and compared them to peasants at a volost gathering,
      forced by the local authorities to sign papers without knowing
      what was in them.

9.Lenin is referring to the appeal of the Petrograd Soviet of
      Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies “To the
      Peoples of the Whole World”,  which was published in the
      leading newspapers on March 15 (28), 1917. For an appraisal of
      this half-hearted Menshevik-Socialist-Revolutionary appeal see
      Lenin’s speech on war, delivered June 9 (22) 1917 at the
      First All-Russia Congress of Soviets (present edition, Vol. 25,
      pp. 29-42).

10.The Appeal to the Soldiers of All the Belligerent Countries was
      the first appeal written by Lenin on behalf of the Central
      Committee of the Bolshevik Party, the St. Petersburg Committee
      and the editorial board ofPravda(see present edition,
      Vol. 24, pp. 186-88).

11.When the resolution on ratification of the Peace Treaty of
      Brest-Litovsk was put to the vote at the Communist group of the
      Extraordinary Fourth All-Russia Congress of Soviets on March 13,
      1918, 453 votes were cast in favour of ratification and 36
      against.